The Syndicate

S~V~S wrote:In Classic Rock at TP, he kept posting "Bump" in the thread for no discernable reason. I found him charming, and still do. Also has some awesome music

*blushes*

So this is the end of me. It probably won't matter much but I'm voting for BoatsBoatsBoats.

juliets wrote:
Vompatti wrote:
juliets wrote:
Vompatti wrote:I feel like I should inform in advance I will NOT be voting for rabbit8 this time.
Vompatti who do you suspect this time?
BoatsBoatsBoats seems to try to play it safe by pretending to be convinced that I'm a baddie.
Interesting. What makes you think he's pretending?

"While Vomps is most likely a baddie, it's really a given at this point" feels a bit too convinced. I also find it suspicious that he didn't suspect anyone else when it was convenient to vote for me.

juliets wrote:
Vompatti wrote:I feel like I should inform in advance I will NOT be voting for rabbit8 this time.
Vompatti who do you suspect this time?

BoatsBoatsBoats seems to try to play it safe by pretending to be convinced that I'm a baddie.

I feel like I should inform in advance I will NOT be voting for rabbit8 this time.

BoatsBoatsBoats wrote:I fail to see how I should vote for anyone but Vomps at this point.

It's for personal reasons, isn't it?

BoatsBoatsBoats wrote:
Vompatti wrote:
juliets wrote:I still have a Vompatii suspicion. I guess a vote force could be in one of the secrets but as people pointed out voting for rabbit again doesn't make sense in the context of a force for the first vote. So I'm going to ask Vomps again, will you share with us what your personal reasons were for your rabbit vote? Also, SVS makes a good point about why bea's team didnt push more for Vomps.
I most certainly will NOT.
wtf that's rude

I'm sorry k

juliets wrote:I still have a Vompatii suspicion. I guess a vote force could be in one of the secrets but as people pointed out voting for rabbit again doesn't make sense in the context of a force for the first vote. So I'm going to ask Vomps again, will you share with us what your personal reasons were for your rabbit vote? Also, SVS makes a good point about why bea's team didnt push more for Vomps.

I most certainly will NOT.

Epignosis wrote:Two words:

Fuck Vompatti.

Yes please.

triceratopzeuhl wrote:
Vompatti wrote:
The Truth wrote:Honestly, Vomps is acting a little strange it seems.
I'm sorry, it won't happen again.
Yep, correcting your behavior when it gets pointed out to you isn't a baddie attempt at blending

Fine, I'll correct it back then.

Orange wut?

The Truth wrote:Honestly, Vomps is acting a little strange it seems.

I'm sorry, it won't happen again.

S~V~S wrote:
Vompatti wrote:This certainly sheds a new light on things!
Yes it does. We should have lynched you~

I thought I was supposed to be his teammate?

This certainly sheds a new light on things!

birdwithteeth11 wrote:
Vompatti wrote:
LittleTiger wrote:
Flyin' High wrote:Vompatti, what's your opinion on Mr. Droopy?

I've noticed you've stayed completely away from that discussion.
Yes, I would like to hear this as well.
I think Droopy is just being silly. That doesn't necessarily mean he's not a baddie though.
Okay. But how is he just being silly?

By posting the fairly obviously silly posts quoted on the previous page?

LittleTiger wrote:
Flyin' High wrote:Vompatti, what's your opinion on Mr. Droopy?

I've noticed you've stayed completely away from that discussion.
Yes, I would like to hear this as well.

I think Droopy is just being silly. That doesn't necessarily mean he's not a baddie though.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:
Vompatti wrote:
Kate wrote:
Vompatti wrote:
Kate wrote:
Personal reasons?
This time it's not personal.
Care to share with the group then?
He seemed overly upset at me voting for him the first time (and this time) but hasn't particularly defended himself regardless of the three (3) relatively early votes so far.
Well it can be hard to defend yourself against: 1) random votes, and 2) people voting against him for "personal reasons".

I was starting to feel pretty deadset on voting for Droopy today for the reasons I had mentioned, (I'm glad FH was nice enough to pull up the quotes I had been too lazy/tired to go back and check on last night. Thanks for that!) but to me, this screams having some ulterior motive behind it. Now I'm going to have to think and look back to decide which of the two of you are getting my vote.

Random, really? I quote:

DharmaHelper wrote:AM I IN SOME SORT OF TWILIGHT ZONE OR ITS A WONDERFUL LIFE OR CHRISTMAS CAROL OR SOMETHING WHERE NOBODY CAN SEE A GOSH DARN THING I AM POSTING GRRRRRRR

Rabbit = Claims INH's episode regarding the first posting challenge was "not suspect", also claims Epignosis was suspect for voting and not posting, then says he's just "messing around".

THEN says that he's got no problem with Leech voting for himself etc etc.

THEN votes Leech with no explaination,

THEN Jumps into the SVS discussion by being all twisty with what SVS was saying.

The civvie Rabbit I know would be all over the Leech voters, giving them all kinds of crap and this rabbit is just chillin'. Not civvie rabbit! NOT CIVVIE!

Also, why are you taking his side?

Kate wrote:
Vompatti wrote:
Kate wrote:
Vompatti wrote:I'll stick with voting for rabbit8.
Personal reasons?
This time it's not personal.
Care to share with the group then?

He seemed overly upset at me voting for him the first time (and this time) but hasn't particularly defended himself regardless of the three (3) relatively early votes so far.

Kate wrote:
Vompatti wrote:I'll stick with voting for rabbit8.
Personal reasons?

This time it's not personal.

I'll stick with voting for rabbit8.

insertnamehere wrote:
Vompatti wrote:I'm voting for rabbit8 for personal reasons.
Uhh, what?

I'd rather not talk about it.

I'm voting for rabbit8 for personal reasons.

Is it because of the poetry gril?

The Truth is way out there, if you know what I mean.

BoatsBoatsBoats wrote:
Vompatti wrote:K, I'll try to be less confusing and consequently less suspicious in the future.
What does mean?

That's for you to find out!

Illyria wrote:Vomp, I hope you are not offended by me asking. I really don't mean to be insulting.

Dang BWT!

I'm not offended at all, I'm often a misunderstood genius.

K, I'll try to be less confusing and consequently less suspicious in the future. :coffee:

English grammar doesn't always seem to correlate to the highly intellectual structure of my thoughts.

Illyria wrote:Vomps, I have to say I have not really understood many of your posts. Is English your first language? I will read them differently if it isn't.

How would you read them if English was my first language and how would you read them differently if it was not?

Roxy wrote:
Vompatti wrote:I'm voting for 8 because 10 seems way too dangerous at this point.
Please explain why you think 10 is way too dangerous and why you left poor #9 out of your post.

I left 9 out because it's never healthy to stay too long at the same place. Now that I think about, 10 is, in fact, not dangerous at all. I confused 10 with 1, oops, my bad, haha (lol xD). 1 would have been extremely dangerous, but luckily 1 is not even an option.

I'm voting for 8 because 10 seems way too dangerous at this point.

MovingPictures07 wrote:
Vompatti wrote:
DFaraday wrote:Oh wow, I thought the lynch ended an hour later. RIP Leech, and sorry I tried to vote for you!
The clock seems to be one hour off.
Go to User Control Panel -- Board Preferences -- and make sure it says Summer Time/DST is NOT in effect.

it was k

*blushes*

DFaraday wrote:Oh wow, I thought the lynch ended an hour later. RIP Leech, and sorry I tried to vote for you!

The clock seems to be one hour off.

Omg k

Also, I wonder who the four(?) people are who haven't posted the three three-sentence posts yet and if they have any specific reason for not posting them. Perhaps we should be particularly suspicious about those four(?) people, whoever they may be! In fact it might be beneficial for everyone if someone browsed through the previous pages and found out who those four(?) people are.

Leech wrote:
triceratopzeuhl wrote:I do think that him breaking his approach to the challenge in defense seems to have made more people look at him, if anything. I'll also say that if he had stayed quiet I would have respected him more for actually sticking to his guns.
I find this at least a more reasonable argument than the self-voting ones, even though I did explain that I found myself in much more danger saying nothing than saying something.

As for vomps, yeah, he only made quite a few of your suspicions way worse for both him and me, which leaves me to believe that he's either a bad civvie or a good baddie. Right now he's on par with Kate in that sense, although I would be surprised if they're on the same team.

vomps
Kate
i
That list may grow in the next half hour. If it doesn't, I recommend civvies check back here once I'm lynched. I will however make it clear now that I don't have strong suspiciosns for most of the people that voted for me, I just see them as misguided.

I'm so sorry, I was only trying to help. :'(

ewwwww that's gross

LittleTiger wrote:
Vompatti wrote:I'm not voting for Leech as I think he might benefit from it. Why else would he have voted for himself? Therefore I will also vote for myself, assuming I might also benefit from it.

Interesting. So, you did not read the posts outlining why people opt for the self vote in games?

You really seem to be going all out to "save" Leech.

Hmmm.....

I honestly think that if he hadn't had a particular reason to vote for himself he would have voted for anyone but himself.

I'm not voting for Leech as I think he might benefit from it. Why else would he have voted for himself? Therefore I will also vote for myself, assuming I might also benefit from it.

birdwithteeth11 wrote:
triceratopzeuhl wrote:
Kate wrote:
triceratopzeuhl wrote:I don't know if that's just what kind of a mafia player you are, though. At least you're mentioning several things, trying to help discussion. I do know that the players I'm acquainted with seem mostly normal right now. The vompatti comment above was a joke, btw. At least he's not quoting wikipedia pages yet.
Who, me?
Sorry it wasn't really clear, I meant that as a continuation of my previous post, so I was directing that at Dharma

S~V~S wrote:Do you guys say "ture" on purpose? Because this is bothering the anal grammarian in me, and if it is a "thing" I will just ignore it.
flase
Ture.

Also Vomps is a liar k

Why/how?

triceratopzeuhl wrote:I don't know if that's just what kind of a mafia player you are, though. At least you're mentioning several things, trying to help discussion. I do know that the players I'm acquainted with seem mostly normal right now. The vompatti comment above was a joke, btw. At least he's not quoting wikipedia pages yet.

ture

Kate wrote:
Vompatti wrote:
Kate wrote:
Vompatti wrote:
Kate wrote:
Might I ask why you would vote yourself, particularly so early into the day? I do not want, and will not get into, a discussion about random voting, but how could this ever be construed as a civvie move? You are either 1. Voting a known civvie or 2. Voting a baddie, I assume you will say you are doing the former, thus my quesion, why would you vote for someone you are certain is a civvie (assuming that is your stance)?
There are secrets in many of the role descriptions, so it could be that he knows something we don't know. Most likely he'll gain something by voting for himself (if he survives the lynch). Otherwise it would not seem to make much sense.
Well thanks for supplying him with an answer but I'd still like to hear from him. So, since this "information" is so secret how would you know about it? Seems you have a bit of secret information yourself.
I count 22 (twenty-two) instances of "(Secrets)" on the first page, that's how I know about it.
So you know because there are secrets or you assume because there are secrets?

I'm not sure.

Kate wrote:
Vompatti wrote:
Kate wrote:
Leech wrote:You may notice that Sock stated that three separate posts and three on-topic sentences are the criteria to avoid punishment. That could be interpreted to mean that having too much is just as bad as having not enough, which is the kind of trick I could see Sock pulling. Based on that conclusion, I wil now refrain from any more on-topic posts, indirectly meaning that I have to vote this early on, in this very post; so I will now cast the first vote, for myself.
Might I ask why you would vote yourself, particularly so early into the day? I do not want, and will not get into, a discussion about random voting, but how could this ever be construed as a civvie move? You are either 1. Voting a known civvie or 2. Voting a baddie, I assume you will say you are doing the former, thus my quesion, why would you vote for someone you are certain is a civvie (assuming that is your stance)?
There are secrets in many of the role descriptions, so it could be that he knows something we don't know. Most likely he'll gain something by voting for himself (if he survives the lynch). Otherwise it would not seem to make much sense.
Well thanks for supplying him with an answer but I'd still like to hear from him. So, since this "information" is so secret how would you know about it? Seems you have a bit of secret information yourself.

I count 22 (twenty-two) instances of "(Secrets)" on the first page, that's how I know about it.

Kate wrote:
Leech wrote:You may notice that Sock stated that three separate posts and three on-topic sentences are the criteria to avoid punishment. That could be interpreted to mean that having too much is just as bad as having not enough, which is the kind of trick I could see Sock pulling. Based on that conclusion, I wil now refrain from any more on-topic posts, indirectly meaning that I have to vote this early on, in this very post; so I will now cast the first vote, for myself.
Might I ask why you would vote yourself, particularly so early into the day? I do not want, and will not get into, a discussion about random voting, but how could this ever be construed as a civvie move? You are either 1. Voting a known civvie or 2. Voting a baddie, I assume you will say you are doing the former, thus my quesion, why would you vote for someone you are certain is a civvie (assuming that is your stance)?

There are secrets in many of the role descriptions, so it could be that he knows something we don't know. Most likely he'll gain something by voting for himself (if he survives the lynch). Otherwise it would not seem to make much sense.

I find it slightly suspicious that insertnamehere was in such a hurry to complete the three three-sentence posts. The negative consequences probably won't be that bad anyway.

I'm kind of hot so I wouldn't mind Pluto.

Search found 44 matches